Posts Tagged ‘second amendment’

Trump bragged about how he could shoot someone in Time’s Square and his base wouldn’t leave him. That’s possibly true, but I will tell you this, Mr. Trump, they will leave you if you abandon the Second Amendment. None of the laws being talked about would have prevented the mast majority of mass shootings. These are basically infringements of Constitutional rights with no payoff. Nothing they are suggesting would have prevented a mass shooting. Mr. Trump, if you go against the Second Amendment, don’t bother running in 2020. Your base will abandon you, and you will lose. I assure you, they are way more loyal to the Second Amendment than to you.

All the late night comedians… sorry… experts demand a real conversation about gun control. So… lets have one!!!!!

1 – The GOP is not beholden to the NRA. Oh…they want to pretend that the Republicans are…but they are beholden to their constituents. You see, we gun owners joined the NRA because we love our Second Amendment. We do not love the Second Amendment because the NRA tells us to. Instead, we joined them because we already did love our Second Amendment. That is why the Republicans do not want to seek further gun control, because it would royally piss us off and they would lose in a primary. What I will say is that this makes me suspect that the Left is beholden to THEIR special interest. In other words, if you think the other side is beholden to a lobby group and not the voters, it is probably because your side is beholden to a lobby group over their voters. This would explain why the Left is for open borders despite it hurting the black citizens they claim to care about.

2 – This shooter (as most shooters in recent history) acquired their guns subject to background checks. In fact, all the measures the Left demands would not have prevented these shootings. Assault weapons ban? Did nothing to reduce crime. Background checks? Don’t seem to be working. The Left demands we do SOMETHING! Sorry… but why do something if it is going to be ineffective? That’s just stupid.

3 – The Second Amendment is about protecting yourself from the Government. It is not about hunting. It is not about self-defense. Those are nice perks, but they are not the main reason. I am much more worried about an out of control government than I am about a random madman. As long as that is the case, you will never convert me to the side of gun control.

4 – As far as mental illness goes, there is a reason why I am hesitant to support these measures. I actually know people that suffer from depression and anxiety, and they refuse to get help. Why? Because they know it will go on their record and they fear the government will use it to take their guns. Also, if a spouse or family member suffers from these conditions, their rights would be forfeited as well. As such, I can understand why they wont’ get help, and that is a shame.

5 – If you don’t like people having the right to keep and bear arms, then you have an option. Amend the Constitution. Until you do so, you have no right to abridge the freedom to keep and bear arms. But they will never do this because they know they cannot win this argument. The Left wants a totalitarian government. They just want one they agree with. Could you imagine if the Right sought the same liberty to change the First Amendment at whim? The right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, but they will declare that that is absolute. Amazing, really.

6 – All the people calling for gun control are in big cities. They are not isolated by large tracts of land. Police are nearby. Or they live in gated, nice communities. Or they have their own armed guards. What about the rest of us?

7 – More people are stabbed to death in any given year over being killed by long guns.

8 – They are being disingenuous. Granted, an AR-15 has the range can accessories (drum clips, etc) to make the long range, open venue ambush a reality. But do you think the Left would stop the push to gun control if it was just a guy showing up in a crowded store on black Friday and using a sawed off shotgun/pistols/etc to kill people? Of course not. Let’s be honest: any gun control measure must at the end of the game conclude with a total gun ban. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

9 – Which brings me to the final point. Guns should be made illegal…that way, no one can buy them…like drugs. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I am what you call a single issue voter, when it comes right down to it. There is one issue that I will elevate above all else. I could believe in 99.9% of what someone says…if they want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, they can go straight to hell.

Here’s what I remember about Hillary Clinton. I remember Wako. I remember Ruby Ridge. Her husband was rabid about going after people who had guns. In the case of Wako, they used military force against US citizens. David Karish went into town every week. They could have arrested him at any time. However, they did a siege of his compound. Ruby Ridge…hell…they were actually innocent and ended up being killed by our government based on rumors. Why? Because of guns. Hillary is an anti-gunner of the highest order, despite the fact that she wants to have guns around herself and her family 24/7. Why? Because SHE’S important. She needs to be protected. You? You’re just a friggin’ nobody. Surely no one would want to kill you…or rape you.

And that’s where I come up. You can say Trump has sexually assaulted someone. Well…no one has even come forward to actually accuse him, other than the media. There we go, but that’s all there is to it, isn’t it? Meanwhile, rappers can talk all kinds of shit about women. You wanna talk about objectifying women. Shit, let’s look at Hollywood for a second. Arch-Feminist, Beyoncé, parades around in lingerie and wants to pretend that she is all about women’s empowerment. We have full industries that are focused around objectifying women. Not only do we not say SHIT about it, but we give these people millions of dollars and critical acclaim and awards and talk about how brilliant all these people are. So, ya know what? Your complaints fall on deaf ears. You celebrate indoctrination of objectification and then want to pretend that your offended? Shit…BILL CLINTON RAPED WOMEN AND HIS WIFE DESTROYED THEM! Why did she destroy them? Oh…maybe the first one she thought he was innocent. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it, but I’ll give it to you. But after that? After the third and fourth time? No…Bill IS a sexual predator. There’s not argument about it. So she protected her husband, destroyed his accusers so that she could maintain political power. Fun. Read Disgraceful Persecution of a Boy by Mark Twain. You support the culture. You’re just as guilty as Trump. Not to mention…here again…BILL CLINTON RAPED WOMEN.

So, lets accept the media’s accusations, just for kicks and giggles. That means that a sexual predator WILL BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. One, however, will let our women keep weapons. Another will do everything in her power to get rid of guns. She will appoint Supreme Court Justices which will interpret the 2nd Amendment to read that it only applies to well regulated militias (despite the numerous writings of the Founding Fathers which flat out say that the 2nd Amendment is about being able to defend your rights against the government and is an individual right). She will then pull and Angela Merkel and bring in Syrian refugees which will molest and rape American women (French and German youtube assaults where no one does a damn thing to stop the assaults). To add insult to injury, they will demand to take away your right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE of the Syrian refugees which they inflicted us with. But Chelsea Clinton will be protected. She’ll be safe…and no one wants to rape Hillary anyway. So it’s all good. You? You’re unimportant. No one’s gonna wanna rape you, so why do you need to defend yourself?

This…this is the reason why women should be completely against Hillary Clinton. God created men. Sam Colt made them equal. Take away guns, and a woman is no match for a 200 pound man with a raging hard-on and no sense of morality…the side-effect of 50 years of trash entertainment.

I got to wake up to the news that 20 people were killed last night at a night club. That turned into 50 killed and 53 wounded. And of course, I instantly thought “Obviously a Southern white male demanding adherence to the Constitution,” much like any sane person would. But it actually turned out to be a Muslim terrorist. Ya know…starting to get annoyed by the word “extremist.” Just throwing that out there. Just smacks of PC-ness that is unwarranted at this point in the game. And, of course, I made a prediction that Obama’s response would be “We have to get rid of guns, people.” And that’s pretty much what he did.

So, of course, we have to put up with them importing more Muslims into our country (seriously look up the immigration rates since 9/11…illogically, we’ve increased the visas to these countries). So after these shootings, instead of examining how we look at mosques that we know are espousing extreme view points, we are talking about banning guns. Shall we forget that the mosques raided after the Paris attacks had a stash of AK-47s and ammo? Or, as I like to say… “Guns should be illegal so criminals can’t get them…just like drugs.” You don’t think these animals wouldn’t get guns or explosives or poisons or whatever they want to use to kill us?

Obama asks if we want to be this type of country. So, that led me to ask…what would it take before I decided that I would be willing to give up my right to keep and bear arms? I guess the first thing I would have to see is that all of our government officials and buildings give up their own guns and armed security guards and fancy alarm systems and live like the average American. If they feel safe enough to live like that for ten years…we can talk, but really I wouldn’t go for it even then.

The right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment for a reason. They said “Shall not be infringed” for a reason. I’m not willing to give up my Constitutional rights just because of these terrorists.

What the? I had no desire to see The Purge. However, now I have the desire to tell others to skip this movie as well. The director has come out and said that this movie is an attack on the NRA, that the government in the movie was replaced by an NRA type organization called the New Founding Fathers (a name a Tea Party group may have come up with). So what would a Tea Party group do if they took over the government in 2022? Obviously they would not try to instill some sort of Constitutional values regarding small government at the Federal level. Instead, they would have a 12 hour period where everyone could commit a crime without fear of criminal prosecution. Yes, that does sound like what they would do, wouldn’t it? Makes sense… I won’t go into the asinine point that police protection is provided by states and municipalities, not the Feds… but whatever. Here’s where the premise of the movie breaks down: Do you not go out and rape and murder because you fear getting caught or because you are a moral person? The fact of the matter is that the police could do NOTHING if the bulk of the people raised up at any one time. Nor could the military, honestly. In fact, one of the concepts of the movie is that the only crime is that you can’t kill a government official. The NRA and Tea Party members would be the first to tell you that the Second Amendment is all about standing up to government officials. This is the way this movie would go down in reality: On the first day of 12 hours worth of legal crime, every law abiding citizen would arm themselves out of necessity. Anyone trying to commit said crimes would be killed in the first day. With the bulk of the neer-do-wells dead, all future legal crime days would be null and void because any surviving criminals would be too scared to commit a crime on that day and would wait for a regular day when most people were not so armed. See how that works? There would not be annual bouts where the good and decent people are killed by murderous bastards. And, of course, this also assumes that the next day, you’d be perfectly willing to go about your life the same as you always had and not say, “Jim! You bastard! You raped my girlfriend! Now you die!” Which would happen all the time and no jury would convict you. Again, the premise of the movie is absolutely retarded. Hollywood continues to make attack after attack on our values. According to Hollywood, the South is nothing but racist bigots, but why is it that every time I see racial police brutality, it’s in bloody California? Hollywood has no problem making money off guns and violence and at the same time demonizes the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. They shove Cloud Atlas and other communist/liberal propaganda down our throats (not to mention anything by Michael Moore) and blackball movies like Atlas Shrugged or similar conservative styled documentaries. Again, I would urge anyone that cares for their Second Amendment rights to avoid this movie. First of all, it’s going to be stupid, but also because you should not reward Hollywood for trying to brainwash us against our own rights.

Here’s a couple of warning signs of fascist totalitarianism. Totalitarianists love to use little children to push their agenda. This is because seeing children ramps up the emotional side of us and defeats our rational thought. We will agree to destroy our freedoms to “protect the children” which represents the future. However, these are false promises. All that happens is we give up our own freedoms and rob our children the right to enjoy those freedoms.

That brings us to the second issue. New York is forcing law abiding citizens to register their “assault weapons.” If they do not renew this registration every five years, it becomes a felony. Yeah, no one has forgotten to renew their driver’s license, and that’s something that they use daily. I wonder if criminals are going to bother registering their weapons. Nope? Then, again, this is just a law that penalizes the law abiding citizens, and to what end? In history, registration of guns always leads to confiscation which leads to mass graves (Germany, Russia, China).

No lives are going to be saved by any of these measures that the President took. If you banned all assault weapons, criminals will just use whatever weapon they can find. A shotgun will kill ya just as good as an AR-15 any day and twice on Sundays. Making doctors tattle on their patients will have the possible side-effect of preventing these people from seeking help in the first place. Doctors have an obligation to notify police if they feel their patients pose a real threat to someone. Right now, I’m recommending that people lie to their doctors and tell them that they do not own a gun if they are asked.

I’m sick of how this President operates. Mark my words, when they start marching out kids that have been coached by party liners to advance the agenda, there’s trouble brewing. Don’t be fooled. Let’s let our kids be kids, and we’ll be grown-ups and actually deal with the problem. If you ask a kid, they might tell you we should end homelessness by giving everyone a house. Kids aren’t equipped to solve grown-up problems. However, I can understand why Obama would want to surround himself with children. It must feel like a Democratic National Convention.

Someone recently sent me an article about the pros and cons of gun control. While I could argue most all of his points, there is one in particular I would like to discuss. He finds the concept of the original intent of the Second Amendment, that of defending ourselves against an oppressive government, laughable. And this is where he is wrong. As it is pointed out in Federalist Paper 46, the largest military a country can maintain is about 1/25th of those capable of bearing arms. This means that the odds against the military are 1 to 24. Of that, yes, they have tanks, but the French and the Russians have shown that people can improvise anti-tank weapons. There is another psychological factor. You see, it is easy for a military to oppress their fellow citizens when they are not shooting back. It might give them a bad taste in their mouth, but they will suffer through. When those same people are shooting at them and forcing the soldiers to shoot back and kill their fellow citizen, the more likely they are to turn on the government that hired them. Query, if Obama ordered the military to open fire on citizens, do you think the military would be more prone to fight their fellow citizen or act to remove the President from office via force? Would they they choose to massacre hundreds of thousands for the sake one one man? Or would they kill that one man? Without guns though, the military can just show up with tanks and guns, and everyone would be too afraid to do anything to them. Oppression sets in, and that’s the end. If the people of Syria and Egypt and Libya can overthrow governments that are willing to slaughter them, I think we stand a fighting chance too.

They say 62% of Americans are for the banning of assault weapons. Quick question: Why? We had one. Do you know why we don’t have one anymore? No, the answer isn’t, “Because of the NRA.” It’s because it didn’t reduce crime. Do you honest to God think that a criminal is going to say, “I wanna commit a crime! What, I can’t use an AR-15? Oh well…I guess I’ll just attend community college, get a job, maybe meet a girl and get married and raise some kids…” Or do you think they will say, “That’s okay. I’ll just use this sawed off shotgun instead.”

The killer already had a gun. This law wouldn’t have stopped him, but even if he didn’t, do you think that the result would have been better if he had used a 12 gauge? Given the fact that the victims were in neat little rows, a few shotgun blasts would have made that room a slaughterhouse. An AR-15 is great for a variety of purposes. Many enthusiasts pick it or the AK-47 as the best all around gun. However, at close quarters, there is no more devastating weapon than the 12 gauge. Where assault weapons really shine is at mid to long (but not seriously long) range. My point? The gun choice is largely unimportant. Two pistols would have had equal ammo capacity or a .22 loaded with stinger rounds would have done the job just as well given who he had chosen to target. Outlawing one type of weapon would not have saved those kids. Hell, he could have used a sword and cleared that room.

Finally, the Huffington Post has a story about how the families of the victims are being denied the opportunity to seek restitution…from the gun manufacturer! Ok…why do the gun manufacturers have any liability here? They didn’t pull the trigger. If you want them to be on the hook, then you have to agree with the following:

1) You can sue Ford and Jack Daniels when someone dies at the hands of a drunk driver.

2) You can sue a Ginsu when someone is stabbed to death.

3) You can sue Louisville Slugger when someone is bludgeoned to death.

4) You can sue God when someone is drowned. Hey…He made water, right?

You think all of these examples are asinine, and you should. Why do you think differently because it’s guns? The answer is because it is guns, and you want to get rid of them, and you will use any means necessary to do it.

Drug overdose deaths: 27,000 (maybe we should make these illegal to stop these?)

Abortions in the US this year: 1,200,000 (insane! right? Talk about saving children’s lives! ha ha)

Smoking deaths: 443,000 per year

Obesity deaths: 300,000 per year (Maybe we should make McDonald’s illegal?)

Drunk driving deaths: 10,000 per year

Driving accident deaths: 33,000 per year

We could make a lotta stuff illegal and save a lot of lives. So why don’t we get rid of all this stuff! We can move to just public transportation (read 2084!). Come on! Join the club! Drink the Kool Aid!

Okay, I’m sick of the flags flying at half-mast. If that sounds cold and heartless, I’m sorry. Ever since 9/11, we have been flying flags at half-mast over everything. I remember the first “Patriot’s Day” (9/11 anniversary…this failed to stick). They put the flag at half-mast, and I went ballistic. I refused to put the flag at half-mast. I wanted to run up a second pole and put that bad boy up double-mast. The flag at half-mast is to announce the passing of a person of leadership. It hails form the days when the fort flag would be put at half-mast to inform the soldiers and others that a leader had died. Now it’s become a rite of mourning. Worse yet, it has become a rite of mourning for people you didn’t even know. I can understand someone lowering their flag when their father dies…but for Whitney Houston? The act of lowering the flag has a depressive effect as well, depressing your spirit and making you more docile. Not only that, but it’s being used as a weapon against us. You see, you’re not allowed to argue. Take for instance the Sandy Hook killings. Flags are at half-mast. You should be depressed. Instead of it being a regional tragedy, it is converted to a national tragedy that we are all responsible for. At the same time, they will immediately start pressing their agenda to ban guns. However, if the NRA or anyone else gets out and defends individual rights and the 2nd Amendment, they would be branded as insensitive. As such, the gun control fanatics get a jump on those who would promote individual rights in framing the debate or bullying public opinion. ”If you’re not for gun control, you obviously want more dead children!” The thing is that this is done at every opportunity, not just for guns. Watch for this tactic, and you will see.

Recently a young black man, Trayvon Martin, was shot dead in Florida by George Zimmerman (white or Latino, depending on who you ask). George Zimmerman was head of his neighborhood watch. He noticed Trayvon Martin, followed him, and eventually slayed him. While it is inconclusive that the slaying may or may not have had something to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was black, this has largely been hailed as a racial slaying.

The first thing I would like to say is that Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragic one. He appears to have been a nice guy, from what people have said of him. Embedded hints in the stories suggests he was a nice guy. The pictures of him show a young man of open face and smiling countenance–most street youths would not dare smile for a picture. As someone said of MC Hammer, “The surest way to lose a rap career is to be caught smiling for a camera.” Also, he stayed on the phone with his girlfriend. This would suggest that he cared for her and was not dismissive of her. Also, he walked away instead of running. This is a trait of moral character…even if it is a very stupid instinct that can lead to a premature death.

The Left has already begun to attack Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, which replaced the “Duty to Retreat” law. Under the duty to retreat, you had an obligation to run away if at all possible. This means leaving your home to be looted, if need be. Also, it means running even if you think your best chance to survive is to stand and fight or even to ambush and kill. I would replace all such laws with the Duty to Survive. Nature’s law has always been one of self-defense. If someone means you harm, you should have the right to defend yourself by any means possible. As my father always told me, it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

There are questions which are not being asked. I think the first, rather insensitive question given the fact that an innocent man lays dead, is “How dangerous is this neighborhood?” Is there a reason why Zimmerman felt paranoid? Is Zimmerman insane? After this, we have to ask if Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he was black.

Regardless of all facts and circumstances, this tragic slaying does not reduce the validity of the Stand Your Ground law. If a man uses a car to run over someone because of the color of his skin, we do not question if cars should be made illegal. However, we all know that the Left will soon start demanding tougher gun control laws in Florida (despite the drastic reduction of rape and other violent crimes that has happened since the right to carry and Stand Your Ground laws has passed). Regardless, Stand Your Ground does not cover what Zimmerman did. You do not have the right to follow someone you think could be a threat. Even if Trayvon Martin had been a gang member, it would be irresponsible. This is like when Ron Artest ran into the stands to beat up a fan because someone threw a plastic cup at him. The sports announcers called it self-defense. It is not. It is revenge. If someone attacks me and I fight back, it is self-defense. If someone hits me and runs away and I chase him down and beat him up, that is revenge. See the difference? He did not stand his ground. He gave chase. That is the key principle difference.

I hope that this case is investigated. On the surface, if sounds as though Trayvon Martin was killed wrongfully, and Zimmerman should face whatever consequences that are appropriate for his actions. Trayvon Martin deserves justice, and it is my sincerest hope that he finds it. However, I should never wish that the rights and liberties of the people at large should be sacrificed due to an isolated event. Could you imagine what we would be allowed to do if they made everything illegal that led to a death? Here’s a list! Flying, bungee jumping, swimming, drinking, sex, over the counter drugs, driving, texting, talking on cell phones, showering, sleeping in a bed, sleeping, riding on trains, keeping an aquarium, eating, and a hundred other things.